Maurice B. Shaw’s Post

The article is arguing that Michigan's transition to a clean energy grid is making the state's electric grid less reliable and more vulnerable to extreme weather events. The author cites the recent Max Gen Event in the Midwest as an example of this, and argues that the state's decision to close its coal plants and nuclear reactor has made the grid more reliant on weather-dependent sources of energy like wind and solar. The author also points to the Texas power grid failure in February 2021 as an example of what can happen when a state relies too heavily on renewable energy. In that case, the state's grid was not winterized properly, and the extreme cold weather caused widespread outages. The author concludes by arguing that Michigan should focus on maintaining the reliability of its grid, rather than pursuing a 100% clean energy goal. They argue that this can be done by investing in proper maintenance and weatherization, and by keeping some reliable fossil fuel and nuclear generation capacity online. I agree with the author that Michigan's transition to a clean energy grid should not come at the expense of reliability. However, I also believe that it is possible to achieve both clean energy and reliability. This will require careful planning and investment.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) last month published a detailed 168-page review on the power outages and gas shortages caused by winter storm Elliott in December 2022. That was the fifth time in 11 years that cold weather disrupted the grid reliability due to power shortages, and the outlook for this year is even worse. The main reasons were the excess reliance on unstable intermittent renewables and the lack of fuel supply. The Indian Point nuclear plant could have provided reliable and clean energy during the crisis, but it was the victim of a premature political shut down by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The proponents of renewables suggest electric heat pumps as a solution, but they would only increase the demand on an already overloaded and unstable grid. It is time to reconsider nuclear energy as a dual-purpose source of electricity and district heating. Science and statistics records show that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, most eco-friendly, and fastest to deploy power source. The only obstacle is to overcome the unfounded fears related to weapons proliferation, unlikely accidents, or high costs. These fears have stalled the development of nuclear power for 40 years. The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air in time to save you before you hit the ground.

Super thankful to experts like Oscar L. Martin, who are fighting for the only viable #energy transition scenario- make nuclear ☢️ great again and make it fast. #Coal plants converted to #Nuclear Plants its a start, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation fast track and shortcuted - coal plants are having a way worse environment impact than nuclear so you are upgrading the system now downgrading, leading a path for #environmental impact clean up. If #USA 🇺🇸is suppose to #reindustrialize we need 40% more energy output according to Peter Zeihan. Source : https://lnkd.in/e9yfZHsu We also need fast track small nuclear reactor deployments, allowing for faster industrialization of new areas that can use modular building and install #SMR in a timeline of months. Also during #COP28 we got the news from Kirsten Cutler, U.S. Department of State, about American commitment to join multinational declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity, spearheading energy transition. This is a great week for #AtomLovers Federal Energy Regulatory Commission International Energy Agency (IEA)

California’s gamble on grid batteries is proving disastrous. Not only have energy bills soared, but solar and wind curtailment, demand response calls, and the grid’s carbon intensity have not improved. In 2019, the carbon intensity of California’s power grid was 223 gCO2/kWh. Despite adding 8.5 GW of new solar and wind and 5 GW of costly grid batteries, fossil fuel generation now operates less efficiently due to frequent off-on transitions. This inefficiency has increased the grid’s carbon intensity by 7.6% since 2019, reaching 240 gCO2/kWh in 2023. The relentless push for intermittent, low-density power sources like solar and wind, funded by taxpayers and ratepayers, is backfiring. Carbon intensity is rising, power bills are skyrocketing, consumers have to help the grid more often to avoid blackouts, and the landscape is being marred by intrusive wind farms and solar arrays. We haven’t reduced carbon emissions below 2011 levels, before the premature shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, which provided 29% more clean energy than all the wind turbines installed in the state over the past 20 years, the equivalent of two Hoover Dams. How long will it take for the government to acknowledge the failure of this misguided energy experiment?

Kathryn Porter writes in the Telegraph, back in April, US lawmakers wrote to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) saying that... “blackouts, brownouts, and energy rationing have become far too common in the past few years. The primary cause of the electricity shortages Americans have experienced in recent history is a lack of generation capacity ... These shortages often happen in the cold of winter or the heat of summer. This is due, in no small part, to the premature retirement of dispatchable generation resources, like coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and the rapid expansion of intermittent resources, like wind and solar, onto the bulk power system.” The FERC agrees. Appearing before the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this summer, FERC Commissioner Mark Christie said “the United States is heading for a reliability crisis. I do not use the term ‘crisis’ for melodrama, but because it is an accurate description of what we are facing.” Christie said that too many coal, natural gas and nuclear power stations are being mothballed too quickly, threatening security of supply. Jim Robb, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), an agency which enforces grid reliability standards, told the same committee that operating the electric grid “ever closer to the edge” by relying on weather-dependent renewables will likely lead to “more frequent and more serious disruptions.” In June, the NERC warned that two-thirds of North America was at risk of energy shortfalls in high heat, in its summer reliability report. It found that all 20 assessment areas have adequate power resources to meet normal peak summer demand, but some areas are at elevated risk of supply shortages in the event of “more extreme summer conditions.” Evening solar drop off and a reliance on wind were a common theme across these areas. “Low wind and high demand periods could result in energy emergencies,” said the report. Similar risks were identified last year and the year before. Despite these warnings, the US US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued new power-plant emissions standards that will effectively dismantle baseload coal and gas capacity by 2030, much to the discomfort of grid operators across the country, while utilities have announced plans to retire more than 40% of the remaining US coal fleet by 2030. Meanwhile millions of Americans are facing blackout risks right now. Bottom Line: Power grids in the US are currently providing a case study of the risks of a mismanaged energy transition. Prematurely closing coal, gas and nuclear power stations risks blackouts. Who knew? Apparently lots of people. ⚡👀 #energy #energytransition #electricity